Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided 5-4 that the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns in residents’ homes is unconstitutional. Basing my opinion on a 4^th grade civics lesson, I say, ‘good.’ We all learned way back when that the Bill of Rights was created to protect the rights of the people—not states or militias. Period. So, there shouldn’t be so much confusion about whether the amendment was intended only to authorize states to arm members of their militias. In 1787, the amendments were created in order to ease the people’s fear that if the new national Constitution was ratified, their basic rights would not be infringed upon by the central government. I’m glad the Court finally decided to begin a revival of the Second Amendment’s original intent.

-- She

 One question I wished more people would ask, especially in the political arena, is 'so what?'  Drilling in ANWR could conceivably compromise the pristine natural beauty of 1,500 of the 19 million acres that make up ANWR.  So what?  The greatest source for good in the world is the United States and a few unscrupulous dictator thugs consider us the great satan for being so.  So what?  Another worthy question that deserves equal distinction is 'so what's?' second cousin, 'and then what?'  The high courts recent habeas corpus decision has given detainees at Guantanamo or any enemy combatant for that matter the right to petition the court on the legality of their detention.  The passions of the left usually consist of the most celestial of motives, but the 'and then what?' often comes with unintended consequences.  Detainees will now have to be given access to classified informatation.  Information that will find its way to the wrong people with deadly consequences.  Our military will become international process servers tracking down and giving subpoenas to witnesses to appear before the court.  How will a US subpoenas work is Mosul?  Military officers and soldiers will now have to schedule court appearances as witnesses.  Now that our enemies have new found constitutional rights, our men and women on the front lines should seriously think about lawyering up before that next mission.   

According to the New York Times:

“Citing the specter of attacks from independent groups on the right, Senator Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would opt out of the public financing system for the general election.”

Backing out of earlier pledges? Does that sound like a proponent of “change” or a typical politician? Obama’s campaign has done such an incredible job of duping the American public into believing that he’s above Washington politics, that people are forgetting that this man is in fact a politician (and a very sly one at that). His actions in recent weeks have made that clear.

So, his decision to break an earlier pledge was apparently caused by unexpected attacks from his opposition… Hmmm… What does he expect the White House to be like? I’ve never been president, but I’d bet that there are lots of unexpected problems coming at you from all angles when you’re residing in the White House. So, even though he has promised “change” in his administration, is he going to break this promise every time something unexpected happens? If that’s the case, there’s going to be quite a lot of broken promises in the Obama White House.  And that’s going to leave Americans even more cynical toward Washington than they already are.

Funny thing is, if Obama actually had the experience he should have to run for the highest office of the land, he might have seen these attacks coming; then he wouldn’t have had to break his pledge. But the whole “experience” thing in politics is overrated and undesirable, right? Wrong. Like it or not, things wouldn’t get done in Washington without seasoned veterans making things happen. Anyone who has ever studied or worked in government can tell you that. The workings of the American government are complicated. Go figure!